Slashdot Mirror
Putting the TV Broadcast Spectrum to Better Use?
KoshClassic asks: "Recently, on the NPR show All Things Considered, an interview was broadcast with Thomas Hazlett, formerly the chief economist of the FCC. Although short on details, Mr. Hazlett raises the point that, with the high penetration rate of cable / satellite TV into American homes, broadcasting television over the air has (or soon will) become superfulous and that this portion of the radio spectrum could be better utilized for other purposes. What do Slashdot readers think of this idea and, for those who agree, what alternative uses of the broadcast spectrum would you like to see?"
how about using the frequency for handheld TV or is this just killing a gadget that has been useful for fishermen,sportsfans,campers for 30years ?
What's the point? If anything useful attempts to use this spectrum, the FCC will simply sign it over to the corporations.
- Twilight1
keeping VHF for the time being and killing off UHF? I can still see VHF TV being handy for EBS (or whatever they are calling it now) -- not to mention in many urban areas, broadcast TV works fine and is a good backup when cable TV is out and/or for portable TVs (Sony Watchman).
Could be fun to open UHF to the public for amature low power broadcasts for a while, too.
This would be fine for a good percentage of Americans, but it would cut off access to many who can't afford the monthly cost of cable or sattelite.
What they might want to do is to reduce the bandwidth dedicate to TV by reducing the number of UHF channels. Outside the larger markets, they could probably eliminate UHF altogether.
Of course, that would limit the potential growth of broadcast TV, further supporting the existing large players by making new competition more difficult.
If they want to eliminate broadcast TV altogether, then they need to work out a deal where cable and sattelite companies give free access to a dozen or so local channels.
I think I'd agree to this if it were federally mandated that "Basic Cable" be 100% free. Including all the wiring to your house. Wires, wireless, what's the difference?
Good luck watching TV portably too... No more sports+BBQ in the back yard.
Something else to consider, since so many /.'ers are into the whole privacy thing: Brodcast signals are the only way you can watch TV without someone somewhere keeping track of what you watch.
Just some food for thought.
DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
The most ubiqutous and cheapest wireless gear has been for the unliscensed ISM bands. The large chunk of bandwidth that the tv spectrum uses would allow all sorts of high speed devices to coexist because there could be a number of non-overlapping yet wide channels.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
wireless internet would be nice
Yeah, I mean what use is there for free television? Poor people are so last year.
I all seriousness, are you guys that excited to buy more gadgets that you would deny the public access to free public television?? This idea is disgusting.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
I get the feeling that they should leave the spectrum in place for many years to come so that these people will always have access to the major stations. In Australia (I'm not sure if it's the same in the US), they forced the telephone company to service rural areas, because otherwise they simply aren't profitable.
As always, don't forget to remember the little guy.
Trying for funny I know, but I came from a rural town with a population of less than 200 and an average income of less than the poverty level. Cable will never come to the town, and most folks won't be able to afford satelite.
Since when did access to television programming become a necessity?
"It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
Basically, the government is subsidizing terrestial broadcast TV by allowing a profit oriented industry free use of valuable radio spectrum. What should happen is that the users of the spectrum should compete for the right to use it with other industries. Since most people already pay to receive TV over cable or satellite systems, most people would not see the increased cost. By reducing the number of broadcast TV stations, spectrum becomes available for more interesting and spectrally efficient services. After all the information transmitted in a 6 MHz TV channel can fit in a much smaller amount of spectrum using modern communication technology.
And let's face it, if a terrestial broadcast TV station turned off it's over the air transmitter, what perentage of it's customers notice?
Philip
I'm sure that "homeland america" will be reeeal okay with that. You know, those places where radio signals travel a decent distance, but no one wants to dig 4000 feet of cable to get to your house. Yeah, almost everyone out there has satellite. However, not everyone wants to pay a monthly fee to watch TV, and more importantly, the middle of nowhere are the areas most likely to want some kind of highly localized tv channel. You think that a satellite provider is going to carry WLCD, Frederick, Oklahoma? No. And *no one* in that part of Oklahoma, practically, has cable. This means if you cut out the broadcast spectrum, this area can no longer have local channels of their own.
I'm also sure that there will be bad consequences from the fact that using exclusively satellite/cable means that in many area, cable would be *it*. There would be a couple people willing to go with satellite, but satellite has some inherent problems in it and these would likely continue, as they have been, to be a minority.
These are privately held and privately controlled networks. I don't exactly trust or like the FCC, but at least they have SOME accountability to the public. AOLTW has none.
Realize that *MANY* areas have a literal monopoly, locally, on cable. Realize that this means we'd be removing the monopoly on who determines who gets a television license out of the hands of the FCC and putting it in the hands of an unaccountable, private, local monopoly. Don't like the fact that AOLTW Cable doesn't carry X Channel You Like? Want to start a public access public service station that at one time the FCC would have greenlighted, but AOLTW cable isn't interested in handing bandwidth to because it's not a money maker and they'd rather go with Animal Planet 2? Get reeeal used to it. And once everyone else gets "used to" this, get very used to any and all complaints being met with "hey, you have choice. if you don't like it you can always move".
Welcome to the new global Feudalism.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
...and do what with the extra bandwidth? Auction it off to yet another foriegn telecom company? Rename it the "Clear Channel band" and play the same top-40 music station on a coast-to-coast repeater network? Given the FCC's recent penchant for giving too much power to too few megacorporations, I don't think letting them restructure the TV band is a good idea.
0 1 - just my two bits
Don't worry. I'm sure the government will realize that, and put a tax on cable bills, like they tax phone bills, to subsidize service to remote areas.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
What about the 80-year-old widows on fixed incomes whose meager lives revolve around TV?
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Exactly. One of the reasons for broadcast TV in Canada is CBC, a government-backed broadcasting station that makes an attempt at keeping the people informed about public events. One of our duties in a democratic society is to keep informed, while there's obviously other means available this one is free less the initial cost of television.
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
The thing that this gentleman forgot to account for was the loss of sales to electronics manufacturers. He's focused on the media companies, which are only a part of the equation. How many portable TVs end up at sporting events, fishing trips, etc.? Though I haven't been able to find hard statistics, Circuit City carries five models and Casio even has a section for portable TVs on the front page of their website. I don't think he understands what a lobbying power the electronics industry is. Without broadcasts, every one of the portables out there would be useless and a revenue stream for manufacturers would dry up. How about anteanna sales and such for companies like Recoton? I'm sure they would join the fight ageanst any legislation destroying the boradcasts.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
What I wonder is this: Why can't I watch my local high school or local college's sports teams on TV? Why can't I watch the town meeting/local gov't on TV? (Yes, I know about public access cable, but that isn't available where I live.)
We have all sorts of TV, but all of it is controlled by large corporations, and all of it is funded by large corporations. It stands to reason that we're going to get biases from those controlling powers in our media.
The FCC is looking at the picture all wrong. They assume that there's something to watch on TV and that people are satisfied with it.
I, and most of my friends, are in now way satisfied with TV. I'm in the process of moving and my semi-new (only several-months old) 27" TV won't make the move -- I'm dumping it.
If the FCC wants to do something, why not open things up for hobbyists, citizen groups, NGOs, and non-multi-national corporations?
When my local high school and college both have AV departments, it amazes me that I cannot watch their sports games or cultural events on my TV. Instead, I get homogenized crap fed to me by large, out-of-touch media monopolies.
Am I the only one that feels this way?
This is a terrible idea. Broadcast reaches places where cable doesn't. Sattelite requires too much hardware and is hard to use in obstructed areas. For example, at my cabin (where broadcast works - usually).
For a very long time the FCC was criticized that it was unresponsive, too deliberative, and an example of a staid, entrenched beauacracy that did very little good for the people. Somewhere that was turned around and now they are overboard in almost exactly the opposite direction! Frankly, I'd prefeer an FCC that took lonmger to deliberate.
The airwaves require regulation, they are an extremely valuable, very public resource. They are crowded and need to be managed in the public's best interest. The FCC does not exist to make mega-media companies rich, it exists to protect a resource - in much the same way that the National Park Service exists to protect our national parks!
Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, the mega-media has gained an inordinate amount of influence over their regulators. Somewhere along the line, the FCC started to manage markets more than resources. We the little people are shut out of the process and even when we complain loud and long, we are ignored.
The FCC has finally become what everyone said it was - an example of a staid, entrenched beauacracy that does very little good for the people.
A strong argument can be made that TV broadcasts, especially news in the event of emergencies, are as much of a public service as telephones and radio.
Commercial based programming is definitely a luxury, just as are 1-900 numbers and talk radio. However, ripping away one of the main sources of news that is available to everyone at any time should be approached with more consideration than saying if you can't afford satellite or cable that you don't deserve it.
Perhaps, as part of ripping away the last broadcast channels (which won't bother me too much), some of the money made by selling that spectrum (and face it, the FCC isn't going to give away the entire spectrum, though I hope some is made public) should be used to provide a free of cost cable infrastructure. Say, locals and/or emergency information only.
For those folks who can't get cable, the FCC should work with the satellite broadcasters to mirror the same program, allowing anyone with a dish to receive the local/emergency channels for free. The satellite providers can still make money on locals by rebroadcasting a high-end HDTV version (while downconverting the signal for the free locals) as DirecTV has already hinted that they are going to do.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
73 DE KE6ISF
This sig no verb.
Seriously, using MPEG-2 and compressed HDTV, the bandwidth currently used by one analog channel can support 24 standard definition or 6 high definition broadcasts.
Leaving out a few of the extra compressed channels and you have a nice data stream for interactive content.
Consider a sporting event broadcast this way:
This is currently possible with the bandwidth available for one broadcast channel and would be a very good use of the spectrum.
One other thought: consolidating on sats/cable could have the nasty side effect of eliminating local programming altogether.
-Chris
is television a right?
the TV spectrum is fine the way it is. if you want to shoot other things through it, then send the HDTV signals!
Maybe Joe Soldering-Iron will get worked up in a tizzy, but I doubt it lasts, he will probably get tired from all the fresh air...
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
...as long as they don't take away the private/amateur portion of the radio spectrum. Even though I'm not a HAM yet, I do think that personal communications without the service of a big corporation is important.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
what do the people who can't afford cable do then?
The logical answer would be that we pass a point in society where it's so valuable to those among us (who, incidentally might not be me) who want to "move ahead" that they will pay to bring the others up to speed. People are so stingy, though, I don't see this ever happening.
For example, when I was a student in Boston years ago, I was told that the Boston subway system operated at a greater loss by paying state employees to collect tokens (at $0.25 back then) than it would if it were free (with no tolltakers to pay), but that taxpayers liked to see money coming out of the riders' pockets and that's why they continued to charge money. I never did find out if this assertion was so, but it had a ring of truth to it.
Perhaps it's just as well, though.
Personally, I have a little black & white TV that is battery powered and that I can turn on during power outages (e.g., due to hurricanes) to find out the weather. Is someone going to offer me a replacement--and better yet, buy it for me? Not only would a change be inconvenient for me, but I worry that it will make our society fragile against catastrophe.
Although we can make one big all-in-one digital information device, I'm not sure that it's wise to. I like the idea of separated systems so that if one breaks down, another might continue to work so I can find out what's going on...
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
This is actually a very interesting and far reaching proposal. I very much like some aspects of this proposal, however, in practice I think that the idea suffers from some critical flaws.
What is most attractive about this proposal is the potential to separate fixed portions of the spectrum from specific uses. I would love to see a system in which bandwidth, be it wired or wireless, was used to carry undifferentiated data. End users should have the option to download whatever they bloody well pleased over their pipes. Freeing up spectrum from fixed broadcasts towards undifferentiated pipes is intuitively attractive to me. At the same time, this type of analysis presupposes that media companies have migrated towards new business models that are no longer based on âoebroadcastingâ uniform data to the public at defined intervals; but rather customers are able to download whatever content they want from the great TIVO in the sky.
My expectation is that we there will be a gradual shift in spectrum allocation. Some data such as stock quotes, breaking news, sporting events, etc has value in real time. If large numbers of users require simultaneous access to this class of data, then there may be a sustained requirement for broadcast portions of the spectrum such as conventional TV/Radio. Over time, as progressively larger shares of information becomes time insensitive, we should expect to see more spectrum shifting towards undifferentiated usage.
I can't even begin to count the ways. Portable TVs? No more. My parents live 20 miles from the nearest cable provider, so they'd have to get a dish. Oh wait, they don't have a view to to the south. Oh, and it costs $40/mo for channels you didn't want in the first place.
How the hell is this a GOOD thing? In ANY way???
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
I heard this interview and wanted to know where he got his data from. The report of over 90% penetration by satellite and cable seemed grossly overstated. My research came up with a figure closer to 76.5%. Methinks they are exagerating the case for subscription TV so that congress will think, what the heck, everyone's doing it. Not so. The poor and anyone else that doesn't want to shell out a monthly stipend to a media monopoly will be shafted by this proposal.
I think the concept of doing away entirely with broadcast television is absurd, or at least, highly premature. While I've had cable for years and couldn't fathom why anyone would _prefer_ broadcast ("wireless") television, I have to say that I know people without cable.
I don't believe for a second that every home in America has a cable line, and I don't believe that 30 years from now 'wireless' TV will have been phased out. Not only do some people like 'free' TV, but I can't tell you how valuable our small battery-operated TVs have been in horrible weather. Trees have taken down all the wires -- we have no power or phone, and turning on an emergency generator proved that cable TV went down, too. But with a small TV, we were able to get live information on the storm. Will this ever be replaced?
I agree -- the TV Broadcast Spectrum can be put to better use. But by that, I mean a more spectrum-efficient way. I see no benefit in phasing out broadcast TV, but there are plenty of reasons not to. Plus, as we continue to move toward more spectum-efficient technologies (2-way radios are starting to move to 12.5 kHz bandwidth; spread spectrum use is ever-growing...), I find it difficult to believe that we're ever going to run out of spectrum for radio. I hope that 20 years from now I'll be watching 'spread spectrum' TV or whatnot, but I sincerly hope that I'm not tied to a wire for my TV.
It's really ironic, too -- everything is moving toward wireless. Need a network? Why not go wireless? Want a new phone? Why not just get a cell phone, or at least a cordless phone? It won't be long before the Internet is as ubiquitous wirelessly as cell phone service. But when it comes to TV, why would people want to move _away_ from the wireless trend?
Yes, cable TV is hugely popular, and I certainly prefer my cable TV. But the concept of replacing it entirely with cable is about as ingenious as noting that everyone has a cell phone now, and shutting off residential phone lines to all homes, because the wires can be used for something else. Sure, some people might never notice. But there will always be people who still depend on their regular phone.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
However I agree that some people still use aentenas to get their signals, the vast majority of the wavelengths available to tv stations to broadcast at are not used. A TV can pickup at most 2-3 signals in a metropolitan area. This leaves an enormous number of channels available for other purposes. Re-organizing does not necessarily mean that the existing broadcasters would be cut, but rather they'd be consolidated to a more confined wavelength.
The FCC is charged with managing the spectrum "in the public interest." How is a proposal like this in the public interest? Remove access to the medium for a large segment of the population just because they are not wealthy enough? The beneficiaries of such an action would most certainly not be the general public, but rather the cable/satellite companies and whoever buys up the TV segment of the spectrum.
...
Ideas like this one and the recent vote on station ownership consolidation clearly shows that the FCC is much more interested in profit and stock dividends than their true raison d'Ãtre - managing the spectrum in the public interest. Diversity of ownership and diversity of delivery medium makes for greater diversity of content and greater audience diversity - all of which are clearly in the public interest. The recent statements coming out of the FCC, while claiming to promote diversity, are clearly supporting policies that drastically reduce that very same diversity. Policies like these are highly beneficial to Time Warner and Clear Channel at the expense of Joe Lunchbucket, Betty Homemaker (or is it Betty Lunchbucket and Joe Homemaker?).
Now I remember why I quit my job in TV and started shoving bits around for a living
Access to television programming is clearly not a requirement for any one person. But, at least in a democracy, if access to the broadcast channels is made available to any subset of the populace then access to it for the general populace becomes a necessity for the preservation of democratic principles.
No doubt the amount of good public discourse on the television today is minimal (and largely there only by FCC mandate). And you may never watch TV (I avoid it whenever I can) but there are large portions of our population who choose to receive all of their information about policy and issues through television programming. It's an important medium; one we can't afford to lose.
To cut them off merely adds more influence to the entrenched interests.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
I use an antenna (rooftop in my attic, not rabbit ears), and it's not because I can't afford cable. I get a noticeably better picture than cable that way.
I also have DirecTV, but I refuse to pay $5 a month for local channels. This is actually because taping programs is really kludgy using their system. Yes, I could get TiVo, but it seems like paying yet another subscription fee just so that I can pay the "local channel" subscription fee is a bit backwards.
This might be slightly off-topic, but I think we (the American people) are being robbed when FCC sells frequencies to corporations. The airwaves belong to all of us, and they don't have that right. They should licence them for an annual fee.
I'd like to see that trainwreck when everyone's signals are bleeding all over the place, rendering the whole thing useless.
Next, let's try getting rid of air traffic control!...dumbass.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
The airwaves aren't really public property; they're useless without transmitters and the transmitters themselves are and should remain private property.
I prefer look at it the other way. Transmitters are useless without open frequencies to broadcast on. The key word is open, which is why the FCC exists, to make sure that you don't end up with 2 stations transmitting on frequencies that interfere with each other.
But most of the spectrum alloted for TV is still unused. Since most people do have cable or satellite, there isn't much incentive for corporations to invest the $$ to build a bunch of new broadcast towers for more over-the-air TV channels. If anything, the number of over-the-air channels will probably decrease, not increase. Because of the FCC's over-allotment, most of the UHF spectrum, and in most markets, much of the VHF spectrum is just going to waste. Why not compress the alloted spectrum into a few channels and free up the rest for other uses? Stations might have to move to different channels, but you'd still have your free TV.
Last time I checked, over the air use of TV was between 10-15%, with cable penetration being close to 90%. It appears that folks highly value clear TV signals. The folks I know that don't have cable are folks that could afford it, but don't choose to have it.
That said, if we are truly worried about folks having TV access, it might be better to charge a monthly rental fee for the use of this spectrum and then use a portion of this rental income to fund "lifeline" access to cable and/or satellite TV. This would allow folks - on a sliding scale - to receive cable and/or satellite TV at a subsidized price depending on their adjusted gross income.
While I'm all for getting free basic cable, I DON'T want that mandated.
...well, maybe they will just print money, but that wouldn't be much different from raising taxes to pay for it since it would fuel inflation.
If, whenever somebody builds a house (perhaps a long way away from any existing cable), the cable company has to run new cable lines out to them for free, the money to pay for that is going to have to come from SOMEWHERE. The cable companies aren't just going to say "oh, darn. more costs" and do it themselves. They're going to lobby for government subsidies.
And the government isn't just going to print more money to pay for it, they're going to raise taxes or cut programs.
On the other hand, if they can be convinced to cut something that never should have been funded anyway, cutting programs wouldn't be so bad (except that they'd just be cutting one bad program to fund another one). But that's a moot point, because the cuts would come from things that are already underfunded like education.
In short, I think the broadcast spectrum should be left alone.
Convert RSS to HTML - integrate webfeeds into your website
Show me a poor person and I will show you somebody who watches a lot of cable.
Since when is it an inalienable right to watch television?
Besides, the networks don't broadcast to benefit the poor. You pay for "free" television by sitting through the ads, and the ads are there to get people with money to buy products.
I don't watch tv (broadcast, cable, or satellite) and I'd like to see that airspace put to good use. Anything would be better than this god awful spoonfed shite that appears on all the networks right now.
I heard the interview on NPR the other day-- the guy wasn't talking about getting rid of all TV spectrum. The simple fact is that there are 60-odd TV channels reserved, but only a handful are being used even in the largest markets.
We can keep all the channels we've got, reserve some for future growth, and STILL reclaim 30 TV channels worth of bandwidth to use for anything from wireless internet to community radio, or whatever else you can think of.
Wouldn't it be better to do SOMETHING with all that bandwidth (and it *is* a ton) than just let dozens of TV channel-sized chunks of our airwaves sit unused? The guy's point is that we're just not using much of it, and that people who want more channels aren't clamoring for more OTA channels, they're getting cable. So why not use the unused chunk for something else?
"Crappy public outreach programs" what are those? like aids awareness, condom distribution, and anti-domestic abuse programs?
But the companies that advertise on broadcast TV do, and the people who don't buy cable do buy other things.
Anybody else think that selling off the public TV spectrum would be a sneaky way for the govt. to create a nice big new revenue stream for the big media providers?
The FCC is already counting on this spectrum being a new revenue stream for the government. This is not "glass half empty", this is "counting chickens before they hatch".
The FCC is counting on this spectrum being freed up in 2006 when they've told TV broadcasters that they must go dark on their analog channels. I'm expecting a VERY LARGE response from the public, who has a VERY LARGE investment in analog TV equipment, when they realize that they'll have to buy a whole new set of televisions if they want to keep watching Amazing Race 12 and Survivor Montana. And an even larger response when these same people find out they no longer have any free TV at all because DTV signals aren't available in their area.
Perhaps the cable companies will find a few new customers by providing the DTV to analog conversions for those who don't want to buy new TVs or don't live in an area with DTV, but the cable market is pretty much saturated, and they don't cover a large part of the country (the same places where there isn't DTV coverage, too).
I don't expect to see this spectrum free up for a very long time, if ever.
That 80-year old widow should go down to the nearest hospital and volunteer to hold babies in the premie unit. It's much more fulfilling than watching "The Young and the Restless". Really.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
The frequencies that are used in tv broadcasting are unoptimal for wireless data transfer in that they are too low. Frequency and maximum possible data transfer are directly correlated. In fact, the only way to move a broadband ammount of data over a long range(such as wireless internet) in the 800 mhz/ 2.4 ghz range is to use packet swarming over a number of seperate radio links in parallel. This is not practical. Give the TV frequencies to people that understand technology.
Here is an idea for re-use... I have noticed flipping channels in the LA area that 80-90% of the uhf band are unused... so why not consolidate. Move stations on the upper band down in frequency and take the upper 2/3 of the UHF TV spectrum and use it for DSSS IP access (think 802.16 tweaked) this should leave enough room for UHF TV broadcasters as some come and go and allow a HELLOFA lot more room for IP.
-OR
Loose all of the TV spectrum and require Cable providers to give a "basic" or "public intrest" type of access for free providing a similar type of service
I only say this because I hate seeing waste (this explains all my scrap machines rescued from the trash laying around running distributed computing software) and I see a BIG swath of spectrum going 80-90% unused
Now think about this... with the tiny slice given to 802.11 and the big impact it has made, think what could be done with the UHF TV spectrum...
I'm with this guy. I use antenna because I live in an urban area and I can get a decent picture for all the channels that I care about, and I'm tired of cable reaming me in the ass.
If those FCC biatches sell me out so that some yuppie asshat can have extra bandwidth for his doodads I will seriously consider moving to another friggin country.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Here's what I wrote in my blog the other day:
3 9
http://randyrathbun.org/archives/000539.html#0005
We all know democracy lost the other day when the FCC gave Rupert Murdoch the go ahead to own every media outlet in the country.
Common Cause has a "write your congressperson" thingy up that you should sign. Not that the Republicans you write will do anything about it.
Also yesterday on NPR's 'All Things Considered', Thomas Hazlett, a former economist at the FCC, and, I might add, a total nutcase, said that free televison should be banished. What was even stranger is he sounded serious. I don't have a lot of time to write this story and try to explain on how many levels just how wrong and stupid this man is, but I owe it to you, the reader, to try.
First, the airwaves are public. I don't care how much 'campaign contributions' to the Republicans and Democrats say otherwise, the radio spectrum belongs to the public.
His entire argument centered around "well, 90% of the population gets their TV from cable or satellite." So what? Last time I checked you could not drive down the street with a cable or satellite dish strapped to the top of your car. I am not saying you should do this, but there are too many situations where receiving TV signals are a matter of life and death. A case in point are the recent tornadoes that ripped through this area. The local TV coverage has been credited with saving many lives during the May 4th storm. I do storm spotting when I can, and have a small portable TV that I carry with me so I can see either the TV station's weather maps. Without information such as this, Mr. Hazlett's plan would be putting too many citizens at risk. Ten percent does not sound like much, but in this past storm it meant that only one person died here in the KC area from the tornadoes vs a number I don't even want to begin to think about had free TV not been available.
The reasons behind free TV go way beyond just warning people about storms.
Oh, and according to Hazlett's web page, he is using a free email account at Yahoo. What a dumbass.
After writing that I got to thinking about some things in addition to my storm spotting scenario. Here in my area it used to be that every time it rained the cable went out because the cable company was beaming the signal over microwave from the receiving station to the head end that served our area. So, no matter what it was doing here at my house, if there was a storm anywhere along that path you got zilch from the cable. The same is true of what happens to satellite during a big storm - I loose sat reception for a while if there is any sort of big cloud between the dish and the sat. My only method of getting a signal from the locals is rabbit ears. If there is any sort of an emergency going on, such as a tornado, I would be left with only one recourse - my local NPR station. For now, that is. Chances are, if Hazlett gets his way that will go away too to turn all the TV and radio channels over to Clear Channel so they can broadcast sports talk and other drivel 24-7.
Hazlett is typical "big business rules" scum.
>Cable just looks like CRAP.
Then your broadcaster and your cable system have agreed to disagree, and its time to start lobbying both to rectify that.
First, let me state that I'm a semi-retired C.E. of a small market tv station, with 40 years in broadcastings technical back rooms, so at least you'll know my credentials to speak to the issue at hand.
Back when even the big time cable ops had to pickup an off-air signal from someplace, and often microwave it to their headend for final mixing, the 'local' off-air signal was often left at second rate, a situation that has grown worse since the fcc started allowing the cable folks to sell their own commercials. If the broadcaster really leans on the cable folks for a bad signal, they can sometimes fix it for a few months, but there isn't any payoff for them in maintaining it as the best signal on their system when its a 100% cost item to them.
This of course leads to a natural bias skew in the ratings because the cable signals, usually obtained from a satellite and therefore pretty clean, were often of higher quality than the local off air signals they also carried.
This satellite-ization of the cables signal distribution medium has lead to a generalized desertion of the hilltop antenna farms the cable folks used to maintain, and to chase them back down into the valley's where they won't get 5 grand worth of equipment blown to hell everytime somebody calls that stuff butter and mother nature objects.
So what have we as broadcasters done to facilitate competing against that? In our case, its relatively easy as the glass fibre used to interconnect the various cable systems goes right by our studios. So we now feed the cable systems in 2 major population areas with a signal straight out of the studio switcher, instantly making our signal quality at least the equal of any of their satellite feeds.
They (the local cable folks here) were damned glad to get a quality signal, actually 2 of them, for almost free. We also program another non-broadcast channel for their use. This non-broadcast channel is dragging in enough markers in the ratings books that we are actually making a small profit on it.
This alone, has been worth 3 to 5 points in the ratings books for the main over the air channel, and has long ago paid off the approximately 8 thousand we had to spend to get the 4 channel fibre transmitter/receiver installed at both ends of a 39km fibre. Cable ran the fibre into our studio and we had to furnish the interfaceing on both ends.
The downside is that the studio is often monitoring the cable instead of the off-air, and transmitter problems that used to be cause for burning rubber are treated with considerably more restraint now.
I'd like also to make note that the 90% penetration figures being bandied around in this thread are not true, by quite a few percentage points locally, where the cable penetration is not more than 65%, the dish folks having a good share too.
But lets be reminded that the dish folks also charge out the yang, often approaching 90 bucks a month according to one daughter who has it. All those promo's that get you to buy it in the first place have a nasty tendency to expire, and the normal bill soon gets the dish tossed in the bin for those who really cannot afford that kind of a monthly bill.
But we are still free for the taking if you want to put up an antenna. Many retired folks find themselves reduced to that as there simply isn't room in the SS check for a monthly cable or dish bill.
Anyone who wants to take away that free option and replace it with yet another toy band is thinking in terms of the elitist, not the general population. Thats the equivalent of Ms. Antoinette's famous statement "Well, let them eat cake" when told that the commoners had no bread.
That attitude has no place in the 'Land of the Free'. It would become valid only if enough 'dish' bandwidth were to be launched so that every over the air broadcaster could ha
Yeah, I heard Mr. Hazlett's interview on NPR. I think he, like Michael Power of the FCC, is a shill for the cable TV-Telephone-Data industry. He conveniently failed to discuss how broadcast media is still accessable to people capable of obtaining a broadcast license (might not be profitable business, but it's available), yet they may well be locked out of the local cable monopoly to transmit their media content whatever the cost. Any so called "economist" trying to advocate a better collective good without considering monopolies should be taken with a grain of salt.
If cable TV has won the battle, as Mr. Hazlett implied in his statements of vast majorities of households receiving cable TV over broadcast, then let's just accept it. The task for our government is to resolve the cable monopoly juggernaut and allow competition to work it's magic in improving cost, choice, and freedom. Hazlett argues for continued whipping of a dead horse.That said, here in Los Angeles, broadcast TV continues to be a better value for me over cable TV. HDTV is available now on the channels I watch and it's free. Signal quality for most LA residents is supurbe with the direct line of sight to Mt.Wilson's anntennas. As for pay-per-view movies, I'd need to rent a bunch more DVDs each month to cost nearly as much as basic cable + the PPV cost. If I should add asyncronous TV capability (TIVO, Replay, MythTV,...) that would greatly ease the "nothing worth watching right now" problem in spite of the more limited channel choice on broadcast TV. Not that cable TV doesn't have the same problem with many more channels.